Is this really breaking the law? It's breaking a school rule. I don't think you can be prosecuted in a court for participating in a campus protest that is obstructing movement of students. Maybe I'm wrong.
Which students did he personally block exactly? I'm beginning to question if you actually read a print article about what this dpefic individual did or do you learn bout how society works through tweets and right wing news only? https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/us/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-ice-green-card-hnk/index.html Btw the other students who took over a building on campus? He wasn't even part of and even if he was it would be a minor trespassing violation. Trespassing violations don't ruin people's lives. Students have done this in so many different activist protests throughout the years. And the worst consequences are minor misdemeanors. And this doesn't even apply to the dude we are talking about.
Did you happen to read my statement saying that I do not agree with deportation of this individual. you know I even highlighted for you to guide you along the way. But again, you twist thigs to your perverted narrative because you want that GOTCHA moment. #FAIL.
Also just do you understand the justification by the Trump administration according to Homeland Security spokesperson to arrest him was because "Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization" Basically they are claiming he is a supporter of terrorism and that is why he's being detained. It has nothing to do with specific actions. He was the face of Columbia Pro-Palestinian protests and that is why he was targeted.
How many times do I have to show you, my quote. Is it a deportable offense, I do not think so, but I'm not the one making the "New Rules"
How are you guys speculating on what laws he broke when he hasn't been charged with anything yet? Green cards can only be cancelled by an immigration judge and the government has to present some sort of charge that would result in revocation of his status as a permanent resident. I know the government is claiming that his PR has been cancelled but even Marco Rubio can't legally do that. It has to go to a USCIS immigration court and go through that process. Now what is truly disturbing is that ICE took him and sent him to Louisiana (instead of detaining him in New York) which was a blatant attempt to change which courts have jurisdiction. The immigration courts in Louisiana are much more conservative and this was an attempt to shift jurisdiction to rig his prosecution. I suspect a federal court will order him back to New York but the point stands that ICE went in and arrested someone, trafficked him to another state and is holding him while they figure out some sort of case against him. Also while the full application of the constitution to LPRs has not been explicitly litigated, we have had some adjacent cases. In the 40s, the Supreme Court ruled that an LPR with association with Communist organizations couldn't be deported (primarily on first amendment grounds). A concurring opinion argued that the bill of rights applied fully to LPRs while the majority opinion didn't explicitly say that (which frankly made sense since ICE couldn't function if the fourth and fifth amendments applied in full). But as it stands today, first amendment rights do apply to LPRs so the burden on ICE is to prove material criminality or fraud. His protests alone can't trigger a deportation under current case law.
Harassment is not protected by the first amendment. Some adjudication system will decide the facts as I guess they are situation specific. I've read horrible stories of cops improperly arresting people and shutting down leal protests. I've read horrible stories of protesters harassing Jewish students. But I think you're right that this protestor didn't break the law (that's not the justification being used), but university rules instead. And the university itself could be in violation of Title VI, which is the legal cover for the Trump administration to pull funding. So this case is probably a legal stretch, as it would really give power to the admin to revoke visas based on actions that created an illegal environment in violation of Title VI, since they're not arguing things like trespassing arrests. They're basically saying they can deport people they don't like, and there's at least a due process claim against that. This admin continually pushes the boundaries of executive power.
So... You do know he didn't participate at Hamilton Hall baracade right? So what students did he block? Those students who did the baracade, I understand if the university would press trespassing charges even though I morally back actions to force universities to divest from Aparthied regimes but that is a different discussion. The discussion here is you don't know the basic facts on the ground over this guy.
did this guy actually block students from being able to attend class. even if he did, im not sure that qualifies are breaking the law. the claim for his arrest is that he posted anti-semtic stuff online and that he was a hamas supporter. i have yet to see any proof of either of those things. also, worth pointing out that trump has had anti-semites, hitler-lovers and holocaust deniers to the white house and to his home for dinner. he has also for some reason aligned himself with mel gibson of all people and made him the ambassador for hollywood.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Israeli government doesn't like this action by the Trump administration. Because it only accomplishes positive PR for Palestinian activism. Many people with very milquetoast liberal "both sides are bad" takes on the conflict see this stuff and start becoming more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
Good stuff. In response to your first paragraph, that is the way the law currently is, but I'm not sure Trump admin sees it as the way the law should be. If a Trump admin attorney were to play the "let's follow the current law game," then they could try to say he was supporting terrorist activity - someone may have mentioned this already. Other current laws that could lead to deportation would be engaging in activities that endanger public safety or national security - ooh, that's the one I'd pick if I was a DOJ lawyer. That's a powerful statute if you're going to play by those rules. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim So there's either calling him a terrorist, saying he's a threat to public safety, or maybe lied on his visa app. But I don't think the Trump admin is even trying to play around those edges. I think they're going straight back to the maximalist position of the unitary executive theory, where the president is the sole article 2 power vested in him by the constitution. And immigration judges are not article 3 judges, but acting under the executive branch. And because of that, immigration judges are arguably unconstitutional. At the very least, they act under the authority of the president. - I think the Trump admin is trying for this approach, which allows them to say, we deport who we want, even if it's just a student visa guy who violated university rules and created an environment that violated Title 6 rights of students.
Re this back and forth about whether he blocked students or broke a law. I think we should avoid getting derailed adjudicating whether he's actually guilty of something. If he is guilty of something, I have no problem at all if they indict, try, and convict him. But, they didn't charge him for anything. They detained him for immigration proceedings, not a criminal indictment. Does the government have any grounds for taking a person out of his home and holding him against his will when they have nothing to charge him with? Maybe, you can reason, they can do so for an immigrant without documents or who has his visa revoked. But, how do you summarily revoke a LPR without first proving a case in court? He's not detained, he was effing kidnapped. What exactly is different between his treatment and mine -- a US citizen. They can arrest me and fly me to Louisiana with some handwaving about how they're going to strip my citizenship for shitposting about Israeli Apartheid on the internet, and then it's up to me to argue to a judge that they shouldn't have done it and they wasted my time with detention and my money on lawyers for no damn good reason? This thread shouldn't even be about whether Khalil's treatment is justified. It should be about who at ICE gets fired, if there should be an impeachment, and how massive should the settlement paid to Khalil be. How are you guys enjoying fascism so far?
He didn't break any laws. And everything in this excerpt from a Free Press article should unite liberals and conservatives against this (but it won't).
So, if you're not a US citizen you can now be deported for actions deemed to be against the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States, according to whomever is the current President. This is just nuts.
Constitution protects supposedly against things like being jailed, but not against non citizen deportation. I amend my statement earlier. I guess in addition to the unitary executive power, they're relying on Congressionally passed law, albeit a very liberal reading of that power: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim
